Did Abu Bakr and Umar Repent Before Their Deaths?

Response to: “Did the Sheikhayn Repent Before They Died?”

Article being answered:

https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/04/23/response-to-did-the-sheikhayn-repent-before-they-died/

The article tries to weaken a narration from al-Kafi by claiming that Sadeer is anonymous and Ibrahim ibn Hashim is also anonymous/unreliable.

This is not a serious Shia rijal argument.

It is an anti-Shia polemical shortcut.

The narration under discussion is:

Arabic:

حنان عن أبيه، عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال: قلت له: ما كان ولد يعقوب أنبياء؟ قال: لا ولكنهم كانوا أسباط أولاد الأنبياء، ولم يكن يفارقوا الدنيا إلا سعداء، تابوا وتذكروا ما صنعوا، وإن الشيخين فارقا الدنيا ولم يتوبا ولم يتذكرا ما صنعا بأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، فعليهما لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.

English:

Hannan narrated from his father, from Abu Ja’far al-Baqir, peace be upon him. He said:

I asked him: “Were the children of Ya’qub prophets?”

He said:

“No. Rather, they were tribes, children of prophets. They did not depart from this world except as blessed ones; they repented and remembered what they had done. But the two Sheikhayn departed from this world and did not repent, nor did they remember what they had done to Amir al-Mu’minin, peace be upon him. So upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people.”

Reference:

al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, Rawdat al-Kafi, vol. 8, p. 246, hadith 343.

al-Majlisi’s grading:

Arabic:

الحديث الثالث والأربعون والثلاثمائة: حسن أو موثق.

English:

“Hadith no. 343: Hasan or muwaththaq.”

Reference:

al-Majlisi, Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 26, p. 215.

So before anything else, understand this clearly:

The narration was not graded weak by al-Majlisi.

He graded it hasan or muwaththaq.

In Shia hadith terminology, muwaththaq is not “fabricated” or “worthless.” It means a narrator in the chain may not be Imami in creed, but is reliable in transmission.

So the article is not refuting a clearly weak Shia report.

It is attacking a report graded reliable by a major Shia hadith scholar.

==============================

1. The claim that Sadeer is anonymous is false

The article says Sadeer is anonymous.

That is simply wrong.

Sadeer is not an unknown narrator.

He is Sadeer ibn Hakim al-Sayrafi, father of Hannan ibn Sadeer.

Shaykh al-Tusi counted him among the companions of Imam al-Baqir and Imam al-Sadiq.

Arabic:

عده الشيخ الطوسي في رجاله في أصحاب الباقر عليه السلام قائلا: سدير بن حكيم الصيرفي. وفي أصحاب الصادق عليه السلام قائلا: سدير بن حكيم الصيرفي كوفي يكنى أبا الفضل والد حنان.

English:

“Shaykh al-Tusi counted him in his Rijal among the companions of al-Baqir, saying: Sadeer ibn Hakim al-Sayrafi. And among the companions of al-Sadiq, saying: Sadeer ibn Hakim al-Sayrafi, a Kufan, known as Abu al-Fadl, the father of Hannan.”

Reference:

al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, entry of Sadeer ibn Hakim.

al-Khoei’s final conclusion regarding Sadeer:

Arabic:

فتحصل مما مر أنه لا يمكن الاستدلال بشيء من الروايات على مدح سدير ولا على قدحه، لكنه مع ذلك يحكم بأنه ثقة من جهة شهادة علي بن إبراهيم في تفسيره بوثاقته.

English:

“The result of what has passed is that none of the narrations can be used to prove praise of Sadeer nor criticism of him. Nevertheless, he is ruled reliable due to the testimony of Ali ibn Ibrahim in his Tafsir regarding his reliability.”

Reference:

al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, entry of Sadeer ibn Hakim.

So the fair statement is:

Some dispute the basis of Sadeer’s tawthiq.

But saying “Sadeer is anonymous” is false.

He is known.

He is listed among the companions of the Imams.

And al-Khoei ruled him reliable.

==============================

2. The attack on Ibrahim ibn Hashim is even weaker

The article says Ibrahim ibn Hashim al-Qummi is anonymous and unreliable.

This is honestly laughable from a Shia rijal perspective.

Ibrahim ibn Hashim is one of the most important transmitters in Shia hadith literature.

al-Khoei says:

Arabic:

لا ينبغي الشك في وثاقة إبراهيم بن هاشم.

English:

“There should be no doubt in the reliability of Ibrahim ibn Hashim.”

Then al-Khoei gives several reasons.

Arabic:

أنه روى عنه ابنه علي في تفسيره كثيرا، وقد التزم في أول كتابه بأن ما يذكره فيه قد انتهى إليه بواسطة الثقات.

English:

“His son Ali narrated from him frequently in his Tafsir, and he committed at the beginning of his book that what he mentions in it reached him through reliable transmitters.”

Arabic:

أن السيد ابن طاوس ادعى الاتفاق على وثاقته، حيث قال عند ذكره رواية عن أمالي الصدوق في سندها إبراهيم بن هاشم: ورواة الحديث ثقات بالاتفاق.

English:

“Sayyid Ibn Tawus claimed agreement upon his reliability, saying regarding a narration in Amali al-Saduq whose chain contains Ibrahim ibn Hashim: ‘The narrators of the hadith are reliable by agreement.’”

Arabic:

أنه أول من نشر حديث الكوفيين بقم، والقميون قد اعتمدوا على رواياته، وفيهم من هو مستصعب في أمر الحديث، فلو كان فيه شائبة الغمز لم يكن يتسالم على أخذ الرواية عنه، وقبول قوله.

English:

“He was the first to spread the hadith of the Kufans in Qom. The Qummis relied upon his narrations, and among them were those very strict in the matter of hadith. If there had been any blemish in him, they would not have agreed upon taking narration from him and accepting his statement.”

Reference:

al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 1, p. 291.

al-Khoei also states that Ibrahim ibn Hashim appears in thousands of chains:

Arabic:

وقع إبراهيم بن هاشم في أسناد كثير من الروايات تبلغ ستة آلاف وأربعمائة وأربعة عشر موردا، ولا يوجد في الرواة مثله في كثرة الرواية.

English:

“Ibrahim ibn Hashim occurs in the chains of many narrations, reaching 6,414 cases, and there is no narrator like him in abundance of narration.”

Reference:

al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 1, p. 291.

So calling Ibrahim ibn Hashim “anonymous” is not research.

It is comedy.

A narrator who appears in over six thousand chains, was relied upon by the Qummis, and about whom al-Khoei says “there should be no doubt in his reliability” is not anonymous.

==============================

3. Hannan ibn Sadeer is reliable, even if Waqifi

The chain contains Hannan ibn Sadeer.

Shaykh al-Tusi said:

Arabic:

حنان بن سدير، له كتاب وهو ثقة.

English:

“Hannan ibn Sadeer has a book, and he is reliable.”

Reference:

al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, entry of Hannan ibn Sadeer, quoting al-Tusi.

The same entry notes:

Arabic:

حنان بن سدير الصيرفي واقفي.

English:

“Hannan ibn Sadeer al-Sayrafi was Waqifi.”

Reference:

al-Khoei, Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith.

This actually explains al-Majlisi’s grading.

A Waqifi narrator who is reliable in transmission can make a report “muwaththaq.”

That is not a defect that destroys the narration.

It is a recognized Shia hadith category.

==============================

4. There is a supporting al-Kafi narration with a full chain

A few reports before hadith 343, al-Kafi gives a stronger supporting narration with the full chain written out.

Arabic chain:

علي بن إبراهيم، عن أبيه، عن حنان بن سدير، ومحمد بن يحيى، عن أحمد بن محمد، عن محمد بن إسماعيل، عن حنان بن سدير، عن أبيه

Arabic text:

قال: سألت أبا جعفر عليه السلام عنهما، فقال: يا أبا الفضل، ما تسألني عنهما؟ فوالله ما مات منا ميت قط إلا ساخطا عليهما، وما منا اليوم إلا ساخطا عليهما، يوصي بذلك الكبير منا الصغير، إنهما ظلمانا حقنا، ومنعانا فيئنا، وكانا أول من ركب أعناقنا، وبثقا علينا بثقا في الإسلام لا يسكر أبدا حتى يقوم قائمنا أو يتكلم متكلمنا.

ثم قال: والله ما أسست من بلية ولا قضية تجري علينا أهل البيت إلا هما أسسا أولها، فعليهما لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين.

English:

Sadeer said:

I asked Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, about the two. He said:

“O Abu al-Fadl, why do you ask me about them? By Allah, no one from us has ever died except while being angry with them, and none of us today is except angry with them. The elder among us instructs the younger regarding that. They wronged us our right, prevented us our fay’, were the first to ride upon our necks, and opened a breach against us in Islam that will never be closed until our Qa’im rises or our speaker speaks.”

Then he said:

“By Allah, no trial and no case has been established against us Ahl al-Bayt except that the two of them founded its beginning. So upon them is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people.”

Reference:

al-Kulayni, al-Kafi, Rawdat al-Kafi, vol. 8, p. 245, hadith 340.

al-Majlisi’s grading:

Arabic:

الحديث الأربعون والثلاثمائة: حسن أو موثق.

English:

“Hadith no. 340: Hasan or muwaththaq.”

Reference:

al-Majlisi, Mir’at al-‘Uqul, vol. 26, p. 212.

This is important because it supports the same meaning:

Ahl al-Bayt remained angry with the two because of what they did to them.

And again, al-Majlisi graded it hasan or muwaththaq.

==============================

5. The article’s argument fails

The article says:

Sadeer is anonymous.

False.

Sadeer is known, listed among the companions of the Imams, and al-Khoei ruled him reliable.

The article says:

Ibrahim ibn Hashim is anonymous.

False.

al-Khoei says there should be no doubt in his reliability.

The article says:

The narration is not authentic.

But al-Majlisi graded the exact narration hasan or muwaththaq.

The article acts as if “muwaththaq” means weak.

False.

In Shia hadith science, muwaththaq is an accepted category.

So the article is not refuting the narration.

It is simply rejecting Shia rijal methodology whenever it does not suit the anti-Shia agenda.

==============================

6. Sunni sources also preserve the historical background

Even if someone disputes the Shia grading, Sunni Sahih sources preserve the basic historical wound.

Sahih al-Bukhari says:

Arabic:

فغضبت فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فهجرت أبا بكر، فلم تزل مهاجرته حتى توفيت.

English:

“Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, became angry with Abu Bakr and abandoned him, and she continued abandoning him until she died.”

Reference:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Khumus / Kitab al-Maghazi.

Sahih Muslim says:

Arabic:

فأبى أبو بكر أن يدفع إلى فاطمة شيئا، فوجدت فاطمة على أبي بكر في ذلك، قال: فهجرته، فلم تكلمه حتى توفيت.

English:

“Abu Bakr refused to give anything to Fatimah. Fatimah became upset with Abu Bakr over that. She abandoned him and did not speak to him until she died.”

Reference:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1759.

Sahih Muslim also says:

Arabic:

فلما توفيت دفنها زوجها علي بن أبي طالب ليلا، ولم يؤذن بها أبا بكر، وصلى عليها علي.

English:

“When she died, her husband Ali ibn Abi Talib buried her at night, did not inform Abu Bakr about her, and Ali prayed over her.”

Reference:

Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1759.

And the Prophet ﷺ said:

Arabic:

فاطمة بضعة مني، فمن أغضبها أغضبني.

English:

“Fatimah is a part of me; whoever angers her has angered me.”

Reference:

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 3714.

So the Shia position is not hanging on one isolated report.

The Shia narration is graded hasan or muwaththaq by al-Majlisi, and Sunni Sahih sources independently prove the background:

Fatimah was angry.

She abandoned Abu Bakr until death.

Ali buried her at night.

Abu Bakr was not informed.

And the Prophet ﷺ said whoever angers Fatimah angers him.

==============================

Final response

This article fails at the very foundation.

It tries to dismiss the al-Kafi narration by calling Sadeer and Ibrahim ibn Hashim anonymous.

But Sadeer is not anonymous.

Ibrahim ibn Hashim is not anonymous.

Hannan ibn Sadeer is reliable, even if Waqifi.

al-Majlisi graded the narration hasan or muwaththaq.

A supporting al-Kafi narration with the same meaning is also graded hasan or muwaththaq.

And Sunni Sahih sources preserve the historical fact that Fatimah died angry with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him until death.

So the real issue is not whether anti-Shia polemicists can play games with Shia rijal.

The real issue is this:

Why did Fatimah die angry?

Why did she not speak to Abu Bakr until death?

Why was she buried at night?

Why was Abu Bakr not informed?

And why does Shia hadith preserve that the Ahl al-Bayt never forgot what was done to Amir al-Mu’minin?

The article does not answer these questions.

It simply runs away from them.